The ICP team hosted its monthly Technical Forum call on December 10th, to continue discussion and development of the ICP Credentialing System. The call focused on the Quality Assurance Provider Credential, and  included discussion of the Project Developer Credential. The following topics were addressed:

• What is / should be involved with quality assurance, as it is applied to the development of an energy efficiency project?

The participants agreed that a comprehensive quality assurance process should involve review of the baseline and adjustments, energy model (if applicable), savings calculations, implementation costs, operational performance verification / commissioning plan, OM&M plan, and the M&V plan. However, there were differences in opinion regarding how "in the weeds" the process should or realistically can go. Much of this is predicated on the size and complexity of the project, with more complex projects or projects with greater savings at risk requiring greater scrutiny. In general, it was agreed that the review should focus on assumptions that drive energy savings estimates.

There was also discussion regarding whether the review (or project development process) should only allow specific ranges for inputs (assumptions), and what resources were available to assist with this effort. The only resources to support this topic that the group was aware of included the NYSERDA MPP Simulation Guidelines (specific to modeling Multifamily buildings), and COMNET's Commercial Buildings Energy Modeling Guidelines and Procedures (still under development).  

• What skills, experience, and credentials should a quality assurance provider have?

While opinions varied regarding years of experience and relevant certifications, the consensus was that applicable experience in all of the components involved with the development of an energy efficiency project is fundamental. Bringing "reality" to assumptions, in addition to ensuring that proper standards and best practices are applied, is a key function of the quality assurance process.

• What responsibility does the project development team and quality assurance provider have?

The Project Developer is responsible for developing a project that follows accepted standards and best practices, utilizing conservative assumptions, and documenting all inputs and data used in the development of the energy efficiency project. They are also responsible for incorporating or responding to quality assurance comments.
The Quality Assurance Provider is responsible for reviewing a documentation package and project submission for completion and adherence to the ICP protocols, and to ensure that best practices were followed, appropriate and realistic assumptions were used, and that savings estimates appear reasonable.  

Our next Technical Forum call to continue these discussions will be held in January (date and time TBD). We hope you will join the discussion! In the meantime, feel free to send your thoughts on any of these topics to Tracy Phillips at [email protected]. 

The ICP team will be hosting our December Technical Forum call on December 10th at 1 pm EST. 

The topics this month will revolve around the Quality Assurance (QA) Provider Credential under development. Specific topics for discussion will include:

• What should QA for energy efficiency project development involve? Is it different for large versus targeted projects? How deep can it go given budget or other resource restrictions?
• What do QA providers need to have in terms of experience and credentials, and who can be a QA provider?
• What resources are currently available to assist with QA?
• How do you define third-party?

We will also continue our discussions involving the Project Developer (PD) credential. Specifically:

• Can the Association of Energy Engineer's Certified Energy Manager (CEM) certification satisfy the requirements, as an alternative to the PE?
• What other requirements should there be?
• Should the certification follow a company or an individual? What if a credentialed PD leaves a company? Can subcontractors count to fulfill requirements?

We hope you will join the discussions tomorrow, as we discuss these topics and continue to develop the ICP credentialing system, and work towards defining the Investor Ready Energy Efficiency project designation.

You can join the call by going to the JoinMeMeeting and entering meeting code: investorconfidenceproject, and join the audio by calling 415.655.0381.

The Investor Confidence Project (ICP) team held a roundtable discussion regarding multifamily energy efficiency projects on October 6th. Panelists included David Hepinstall, Executive Director at the Association of Energy Affordability (AEA), Christopher Diamond, Director of Engineering and Technical Analysis at the New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation (NYCEEC), and Agostino Dell’Oso, Manager of Engineering Services at Celtic Energy.

The hour and a half discussion presented a general overview of the ICP protocols, and some of the key differences between multifamily  and other commercial energy efficiency projects. The panelists discussed:

• Challenges facing multifamily projects, including how to address split incentives and tenant privacy laws
  
• What  PACE is, and how it works for multifamily
  
• The importance of tenant and facility manager buy-in, and how to affect it to improve results
  
• Successful and unsuccessful multifamily projects, and why these succeeded or failed
  
• How ICP protocols can be integrated into multifamily projects, to bridge the gap between project development and financing, and help get more projects green-lighted.
  

The ICP team would like to thank our panelists for this terrific discussion, as well as those that attended the roundtable. If you missed the webinar, and would like to listen to it in its entirety and view the presentation, you can access it here.

The Investor Confidence Project (ICP) Quality Assurance Specification is nearing completion, with an expected release in mid to late September. This document will support project development and quality assurance efforts performed in accordance with the six ICP Energy Efficiency Performance (EEP) protocols.

A Technical Forum conference call was conducted on August 26th, to determine revisions that will be considered for the final draft of the document. The following is a list of revisions and topics that resulted from this discussion to be considered:

• Introduction - this section of the specification will be expanded, to discuss how this document is intended to be used by the Project Development (PD) team and the Quality Assurance (QA) provider(s). It will explain when certain approaches should be applied (such as energy modeling versus spreadsheet analysis, or when to use various Measurement and Verification options), keeping in mind available resources and the associated risk and uncertainty that may result. The section will also detail specific responsibilities of the PD team and QA providers, and the timing associated with the tasks involved with the project development and review efforts.
  
  
• Financing - different financing options are available, and each possess different levels of risk and uncertainty. This section will be revisited to ensure that these different options are explained, and that the risks and responsibilities associated with this financial analysis effort are clearly defined.
  
  
• Design, Construction and Verification - It is important to define who has responsibility for operational performance verification, how these efforts can be integrated into the M&V processes, and depending on the responsible party, how this affects risk.
  
  
• The definition of building operational plans should be integrated into the construction documentation and operational manual, developed by the building owner or PD team, and subsequently reviewed by the PD team and QA provider, to avoid issues with building or energy performance and expectations.
  
  
• “Quality Management” - The term “Quality Assurance” will be replaced with “Quality Management,” to address the thought that quality cannot be assured. That this document is intended to help deliver quality and reduced risk through a structured, well defined, quality management process. Specifically, the specification will explain that this document is intended for “Engineering Services Quality Management.”
  
  
• ISO 50001 - the International Standards will be reviewed and appropriate references introduced into this specification that support methods and best practices described in the document.
  
  

The ICP development team appreciates the continued support provided by the Technical Group and other industry experts. Final thoughts or comments should be submitted to Tracy Phillips ([email protected]) by September 2nd, 2014.

The ICP Development Team

Uncertainty and risk are always a consideration for any energy efficiency project, and certain areas of project development can introduce more uncertainty and risk than others.  The Investor Confidence Project (ICP) is intended to provide a framework for energy efficiency (EE) project development to reduce risk and increase the reliability and consistency of energy savings. The ICP system is designed to provide a comprehensive framework of required elements that is flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of methods and resources that are specific to individual projects.

The ICP Quality Assurance (QA) Specification identifies areas of an energy efficiency project that require greater levels of scrutiny and QA, as well as methods, roles, responsibilities and resources associated with the QA process.  The ICP QA Specifications comprise a standardized methodology and evaluation criteria that ensures projects following the ICP protocols conform to the specifications of the protocols.

The ICP team has been soliciting input from industry-experts on an ongoing basis to develop the QA Specification, due for release in late August. A final Technical Forum conference call was conducted on July 29th, to determine revisions that will be considered for the final draft of the document. The following is a list of revisions and topics that resulted from this discussion to be considered:

• Differences between the protocols - Discuss the major differences between the protocols, such as: when should energy modeling be used as opposed to spreadsheet or other energy savings calculation methods; when are M&V Options A, B or C most appropriate; etc.
  
  
• Flow chart - Consider a flow chart or similar method to describe when project development and QA tasks should be performed, and how these tie into critical financing decision milestones.
  
  
• Whole building baseline - It was concluded that a whole building baseline should be developed for all projects, even those only involving a single or a handful of energy conservation measures (ECMs).
  
  
• Baseline – Describe the process of developing a baseline upper and lower bound. This involves use of the energy use equation to calculate energy use for the baseline period, and comparison to historical utility bills. Using the error, standard deviation, and confidence/precision levels, create a minimum and maximum baseline – savings should fall within this range to be considered successful).
  
  
• Data sufficiency - Application of the BEPA Standard to sub-metered loads.
  
  
• Investment criteria - Reinforce the idea that all inputs necessary for the financial evaluation of a potential EE project should be developed by the project development team, such as implementation costs, estimated savings, available incentives, and effective useful life. Input from the investor should be provided regarding appropriate financial metrics and values to use for escalation rates, interest rates, discount rates, cost of capital, lease terms, and other appropriate financial inputs.
  
  
• Simple payback is an accepted metric for some projects.
  
  
• This protocol is intended for investors of all types. Many programs specifically define the financial metrics and inputs to use for analysis.
  
  
• Better define the “project’s useful life” in the savings to investment ratio definition; this is defined as the weighted average of the expected useful life of all measures being considered.
  
  
• Energy model calibration - Review and add additional details following ASHRAE Guideline 14 regarding calibration best practices.
  
  
• Recommendation of monthly accuracy of the calibrated model to historical utility bills within +/-15% is appropriate.
  
  
• Consider greater accuracy in annual calibration, such as +/-5%.
  
  
• Risk and uncertainty in the model calibration should be documented and quantified.
  
  
• Model should be calibrated to monthly data, and hourly data (if available).
  
  
• Energy model resources - A comprehensive list of resources is already provided. Consider adding a resource for available energy modeling engines and front-ends, such as the DOE energy modeling tools library. Consider the paper by Dru Crawley, which compares ten specific energy modeling tools.
  
  
• ECM modeling - Currently describes an iterative approach, and ECM bundled packages. Seek input on other potential approaches to ensure that interactive effects are being properly represented.
  
  
• Savings calculations - Reference the uncertainty analysis methods described in the “Uncertainty and Risk” section of the specification in the Savings Calculation section. Uncertainty and risk best practices and quantification methods should be applied to the energy savings estimates.
  
  
• Operational Performance Verification (OPV) - Term used to describe the commissioning process applied specifically to the ECMs (differentiates it from a whole-building commissioning effort).
  
  
• Does the term “OPV” capture the intent, requiring complete commissioning of the process as it is applied to the project?
  
  
• Would terms such as “targeted commissioning” or “project commissioning” better convey the idea being promoted?
  
  
• Requires further discussion.
  
  
• M&V - Will add short definitions of Options A, B and C, as well as when these are best applied based on the project or ECM type.
  
  
• Uncertainty and risk - Will add references to this section in other sections of the specification as appropriate. Will also add mention of Latin Hypercube sampling in addition to Monte Carlo method.
  
  

If you’re interested in becoming involved with the development of this QA Specification, you can contact Tracy Phillips at [email protected], or subscribe to the ICP Technical Forum updates on our website at http://www.eeperformance.org/technical-forum.html.

The ICP development team is considering alternative requirements to "sign off" on projects less than $250,000 in investment capital (typically involving Targeted Commercial or Targeted Multifamily projects). 

Currently, all projects that adhere to the ICP protocols require a Professional Engineer (PE) to sign off / approve the project before it is considered "investor ready." This alternative requirement would allow someone holding AEE's Certified Energy Manager (CEM) or Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) credentials, or the ASHRAE Building Energy Assessment Professional (BEAP) to sign off on a project less than $250k.

We are considering that this person also have either three or five years of applicable experience (energy efficiency project development). 

We are looking for input on whether the ICP should require five years of experience, or whether three years would be sufficient. And what are your thoughts on this approach? Are these certifications appropriate to approve a project's readiness? Are there other certifications that should also be considered?

Please let us know your thoughts!

Thanks - the ICP Development Team.